You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I made my post (377) at 9:23 and he quoted me at 9:33. So he saw what I wrote (and it's in his quote of my post) and his poor Se skimmed over it.

Such a nice girl.

The truth (i.e., not just the throwing around of really pathetic typological attacks) is that, upon going back and reading it (once you pointed out which post it was in), I clearly remembered you saying that.

But if you look at my response that followed:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by proteanmix

I saw a contradiction because if a function motivates you to a certain behavior, then how would you see the function at work if the behavior (empathy) can also be motivated by another function?

If these are motivations:

Are they doing it because they have familial associations or any other ties to Haiti?
Are they doing it because they're French and feel some kind of former colonial tie?
Are they doing it because they want to run for Haitian president and believe they can run things better?
Are they doing it out of the unbounded goodness of their heart?

How would you know Fi (for example) made a person empathize? The other motivations still resulted in empathy. IOW, how do you know the order is function>motivation>behavior vs motivation>function>behavior. That is the pointless part to me.

If I'm not understanding then please restate your question another way so I can get it.

I don't know where the communication gap is coming from, but... well, it certainly exists...

Look at what was said:

Originally Posted by proteanmix

Above anything else, I believe empathy is a learned skill.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

But couldn't you just turn around and say that the skill one is learning is to use a function associated with empathy (Fe, Fi: take your choice)?

See bolded.

I said "associated with".

Somewhere in there, you came out with "motivated".

At this point, I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with me about...

If you hadn't noticed, many posts had been made, the line of discussion was rather convoluted, and, in that context, edits can be made and missed, and even original requests for clarification can be missed; I was simply stating that she show me where she'd asked for clarification, and that, if she had edited it in after the fact that, and that I'd missed it, then I would want it to be known that I hadn't seen it in her original post because it was not originally there.

^

Plenty of reasoning, not much soundness...

Unless, you can justify one point:

If protean now says to you, that she had, in the past, say, edited her post [sans any apparent time-stamp], how would that in any way be informative from her perspective, of whether YOU thus read the edited or unedited version? How would she know or be aware of this difference - and present it with that knowledge in mind?

Aside: It'll only depend on your subsequent response, whether you say that it was indeed the version you read or otherwise. Which you can as easily admit or deny.

At the end of the day, your wording points to an intent with that request:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Huh?

Where was this?

(pre-editing it in, please.)

Pre as in before editing it in, please.

You're asking her now for a post that has already happened, already exists in its final form, original or otherwise, by asking her for its "before editing it in" version? Either you're asking her to jump through mod hoops to prove her innocence, or, this request is completely soundless, as it's a rationally impossible request to fulfill by a member [i.e., negating protean's mod-status].

To give you the "pre-edited" version when pre-edit or edit - both are in the past, i.e., already happened before your request, is impossible to distinguish, thus, deliver to you.

So either you made a rationally impossible request of Protean, or.......

You were referring to an edit about to happen, then your use of "pre-edit" makes sense.

Edit, to add: my one assumption is that your request to her wasn't intended to be rationally impossible, hence, my drawing the only conclusion it thus affords.

It's interesting to me how "suspicious" Pete seems to be with strangers, in contrast to me who perhaps trusts *too* easily and readily. (After all, I don't want anyone to feel unliked -- even before I meet someone I am predisposed to "take care of" their feelings.) I didn't pick up on this aspect during the interview itself, but this may very well reflect an Fe/Fi difference. I also want to add the caveat that something I love in this interview is how we don't "mesh" very well.

infj about infp. . i wouldn't mesh either, with vicky jo's hands all over me and her awkward leading questions. and then the infp in the video talks about how empathetic he is.